I would rather have a metal mount, but my plastic mount lenses have all been fine. With such a small lens as the 12-32, I think plastic is sensible as a cost and weight saving move. For a long and heavy lens, there can be stress on the mount, but I am thinking that is a non-issue for the 12-32.

I understand the sentiment, but why two versions? And it cheapens what is a very nice lens.

Click to expand...

Well, it quite literally cheapens the lens for Panasonic. So that's something, and not that surprising.

That said, Panasonic is much smarter about plastic mounts than some other manufacturers. The Fuji 16-50 has a very fragile plastic mount (2 people I know have had it break!) and has the electrical contacts and ribbon cable integrated into the same piece as the plastic bayonet! It costs more than the lens is worth to replace it. On Panasonic, at least the bayonet just attaches with 3 screws and the electrical contacts are a separate part.

I understand the sentiment, but why two versions? And it cheapens what is a very nice lens. One that already has issues with the front part that separates.

Click to expand...

I don't think it cheapens the lens because a metal mount means nothing. Well engineered composites are stronger than cheap metals and the whole guts of the lens are plastic anyway. The metal mount was a facade to give some illusion of high build quality, just like the tin sleeve they put around the lens. If they had designed the lens to be all plastic, then they could have made it more durable with parts that snap together. Instead they have a plastic lens with metal parts that fall off.

I don't know why two versions, but they do the same thing with the 14-42 II. The plastic mount one is sold in kits with a camera and the metal mount one is the retail boxes version that sells for $249. I think they want to give the perception of higher quality when you've spend 2x what the lens is worth, so I guess an extra buck for a metal ring on the mount is worth it for marketing.

The 12-32 lens has a major issue with the zoom ring coming loose. The key that transfers torque is very shallow and the glue that holds things together loosens up at maybe 40ºC. With the metal mount it requires quite a bit of force to mount and dismount the lens so the zoom ring comes off. Plastic lens mounts have some inherent lubrication and will deform a bit so it takes much less torque to get the lens on and off. Cheaper than redesigning the zoom ring interface.

Well, it quite literally cheapens the lens for Panasonic. So that's something, and not that surprising.

That said, Panasonic is much smarter about plastic mounts than some other manufacturers. The Fuji 16-50 has a very fragile plastic mount (2 people I know have had it break!) and has the electrical contacts and ribbon cable integrated into the same piece as the plastic bayonet! It costs more than the lens is worth to replace it. On Panasonic, at least the bayonet just attaches with 3 screws and the electrical contacts are a separate part.

I don't think it cheapens the lens because a metal mount means nothing. Well engineered composites are stronger than cheap metals and the whole guts of the lens are plastic anyway. The metal mount was a facade to give some illusion of high build quality, just like the tin sleeve they put around the lens. If they had designed the lens to be all plastic, then they could have made it more durable with parts that snap together. Instead they have a plastic lens with metal parts that fall off.

I don't know why two versions, but they do the same thing with the 14-42 II. The plastic mount one is sold in kits with a camera and the metal mount one is the retail boxes version that sells for $249. I think they want to give the perception of higher quality when you've spend 2x what the lens is worth, so I guess an extra buck for a metal ring on the mount is worth it for marketing.

Click to expand...

No it's not really that surprising I guess as a way to reduce costs and yes I know many plastics / composites are better than cheaper metals.

It does cheapen the lens from a perceived value point of view. Check out the resale values of the 14-42 plastic mount versus metal mount versions. I'm not saying it makes the lens worse optically or that it really needs a metal mount based on size / weight. I already own a 12-32 that has the issue with the front part that comes off. If I were to get the GX85 kit I'm not sure which lens would have a higher resale value, a metal mount 12-32 with the issue or a new one with a plastic mount.

That kind of sounds like an urban legend. Am I to assume tiny metal shavings occur from using metal lenses?

Click to expand...

Well, that they shed dust is easy to show. Just swipe a damp finger around the mount and you'll come away with black residue. Certainly the plastic mount on the Olympus 14-42 kit lens I had did this. I can't see how this can fail to get on the sensor.

Well, that they shed dust is easy to show. Just swipe a damp finger around the mount and you'll come away with black residue. Certainly the plastic mount on the Olympus 14-42 kit lens I had did this. I can't see how this can fail to get on the sensor.

Click to expand...

I only have metal mount lenses, and the residue still exists. It's not a plastic problem.

Well, it quite literally cheapens the lens for Panasonic. So that's something, and not that surprising.

That said, Panasonic is much smarter about plastic mounts than some other manufacturers. The Fuji 16-50 has a very fragile plastic mount (2 people I know have had it break!) and has the electrical contacts and ribbon cable integrated into the same piece as the plastic bayonet! It costs more than the lens is worth to replace it. On Panasonic, at least the bayonet just attaches with 3 screws and the electrical contacts are a separate part.

Click to expand...

I can attest to this, my 16-50mm broke when I had slipped and felled backwards. The camera landed on me and the 16-50 just partially snapped. It would have cost about the same I paid for the lens. Such, a shame as it's a nice lens too.

Didn't realize the original was metal mount. But honestly was surprised they were including this lens with the GX85 as such a good kit price. If this is what it takes to make the 12-32 the new $100 kit lens and it replaces the 14-42 in the price range I'm fine with it. I was never happy with Pana and oly pairing these relatively long bodied lenses with their smaller rangefinders. Pancakes are much better IMO.

I add that I mounted the 14-42ii to my GX7 about 100x and there was no issues whatsoever.